MICHAEL DIMOND HILLIARD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Affirmed convictions and sentences where defendant failed to preserve sentencing errors by not objecting at trial or filing a motion to correct sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).
A defendant who fails to object at sentencing or file a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) does not preserve sentencing errors for appellate review.
[1] Sentencing errors are not preserved for appellate review when a defendant fails to object at sentencing or file a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of C…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Hilliard was convicted in circuit court case number 07-CF-11715 and had his drug offender probation revoked in case number 06-CF-13121. His wr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sentencing Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Michael Hilliard challenges his convictions and sentences in circuit court case number 07-CF-11715, and the revocation of his drug offender probation and resulting sentence in circuit court case number 06-CF-13121. After reviewing the record, we directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs regarding Hil-liard’s written sentences in both cases and whether any error in the written sentences could be addressed in this appeal.
Both parties acknowledge in their supplemental briefs that Hilliard’s written sentences fail to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of the sentences. However, they also acknowledge that neither Hilliard nor the State preserved the errors for appeal by objecting or filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Proce*728dure 3.800(b). See Young v. State, 988 So.2d 1128, 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (noting that the defendant failed to preserve a sentencing error for appellate review by not objecting during sentencing or filing a motion pursuant to rule 3.800(b)); State v. Hamner, 816 So.2d 810, 812 (Fla. 6th DCA 2002) (noting that the State failed to preserve its argument that Hamner’s downward departure sentence was illegal when it failed to object or file a motion to correct sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(b)).
Accordingly, we affirm Hilliard’s convictions and sentences in case number 07-CF-11715 and the revocation of his probation and resulting sentence in case number 06-CF-13121.
Affirmed.
KELLY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. Hamner, 816 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Jetavious Young v. State, 988 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)